Introduction: Does the author develop a specific context that situates the comic historically, culturally, aesthetically, etc? Does the author clearly state her/his argument? In other words, does the author articulate the argument the comic fosters and briefly outline the rhetorical techniques/appeals that aid in its transmission? Are the context and the argument commiserate? Stated differently, does the context the author presents clearly and directly relate to the stated argument? What questions do you still have about the context, argument, or their mutual relationship? Suggest alternative approaches for the introduction. Also, does the introduction account for the manner in which the genre complicates, situates, or aides in the construction of the argument?
Body: Does the author address all the rhetorical techniques/appeals (s)he addresses in the introduction's argument? Are their any (s)he doesn't mention, but employs within the body? Given the comic the author selected, are these the most important concepts for her/him to be focusing on? Or stated differently, do the rhetorical concepts addressed by the author directly related to the argument the comic constructs? What rhetorical terms are not addressed? Should they be? Does the author provide specific examples from the text to support their claims? Provide alternative approaches for the author's analysis; specifically, offer suggestions as to where different concepts can be employed using evidence from the text for support. Are the transitions between ideas and concepts fluid and do they relate to one another in an evident manner?
Conclusion: Does the author address the "So what?" question, as opposed to merely summarizing their essay? To this extent, does the author inform us, as audience members, why we should care or be interested in the argument the comic constructs? If employed, does the "So what?" question connect to the introduction's context in a relevant and meaningful manner? Offer commentary and alternative approaches to how the author could formulate their conclusion differently and more appropriately.
General: What specific aspects of the essay worked best? What specific aspects of the essay functioned least well?
Multimedia: Did the author incorporate the appropriate amount of multimedia elements into their essay? Did they integrate the multimedia elements into the fabric of the text in a logical and aesthetically pleasing manner? In other words, do the images/videos engage the text by which it is placed? Are they relevant? Furthermore, does the placement of the multimedia elements disrupt the alignment of the text making difficult to read? Suggest alternatives.
Hyperlinks/Citation: Are there the appropriate amount of hyperlinks embedded into the text? Do they connect to reputable sites that provide additional background information that is interesting and heightens your understanding of the subject matter? Suggest alternatives for linked-words and possible sites. Is all secondary information cited properly, both in-line and in the works cited section? Is there material in the essay that was obviously taken from a secondary source (stats, dates, background information, etc.) but not cited? Finally, are there aspects of the essay that would benefit from research? Stated differently, do certain portions of the essay read as generalizations or unsubstantiated opinions when specific/cited information would function better?
Body: Does the author address all the rhetorical techniques/appeals (s)he addresses in the introduction's argument? Are their any (s)he doesn't mention, but employs within the body? Given the comic the author selected, are these the most important concepts for her/him to be focusing on? Or stated differently, do the rhetorical concepts addressed by the author directly related to the argument the comic constructs? What rhetorical terms are not addressed? Should they be? Does the author provide specific examples from the text to support their claims? Provide alternative approaches for the author's analysis; specifically, offer suggestions as to where different concepts can be employed using evidence from the text for support. Are the transitions between ideas and concepts fluid and do they relate to one another in an evident manner?
Conclusion: Does the author address the "So what?" question, as opposed to merely summarizing their essay? To this extent, does the author inform us, as audience members, why we should care or be interested in the argument the comic constructs? If employed, does the "So what?" question connect to the introduction's context in a relevant and meaningful manner? Offer commentary and alternative approaches to how the author could formulate their conclusion differently and more appropriately.
General: What specific aspects of the essay worked best? What specific aspects of the essay functioned least well?
Multimedia: Did the author incorporate the appropriate amount of multimedia elements into their essay? Did they integrate the multimedia elements into the fabric of the text in a logical and aesthetically pleasing manner? In other words, do the images/videos engage the text by which it is placed? Are they relevant? Furthermore, does the placement of the multimedia elements disrupt the alignment of the text making difficult to read? Suggest alternatives.
Hyperlinks/Citation: Are there the appropriate amount of hyperlinks embedded into the text? Do they connect to reputable sites that provide additional background information that is interesting and heightens your understanding of the subject matter? Suggest alternatives for linked-words and possible sites. Is all secondary information cited properly, both in-line and in the works cited section? Is there material in the essay that was obviously taken from a secondary source (stats, dates, background information, etc.) but not cited? Finally, are there aspects of the essay that would benefit from research? Stated differently, do certain portions of the essay read as generalizations or unsubstantiated opinions when specific/cited information would function better?
